|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 11/20/2009 5:26:41 PM PACIFIC |
 Odds are not just math equations, Roy Cooke, 27. Oct 2003 07:08 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Odds in poker change based on many factors. The true odds a pot is laying you is the overall price you have to pay (including the times you make your hand and lose) vs the size of the pot if you win. Many seat of the pants judgments go into the equation. Some things to think about: How big will the pot become if you make your hand? What are the chances you can make your hand and lose? Does calling this street commit you to calling other streets? If so what is the TOTAL cost to draw? Does calling on the come commit you to paying the hand off on the river? How sure are you in your reading of the situation that is current? What is the propensity of you to "outplay " your opponent(s) out of the pot. What is the propensity of your opponent(s) to "outplay" you out of the pot. Life is Good :-) Roy Cooke | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Odds are not just math equations, Aisthesis, 27. Oct 2003 11:18 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| very true, and probably in most cases a "feel" for the situation is the most important thing to have (and imo one's "feel" is definitely improved by awareness of the purely mathematical odds). More interesting is how to apply your principle to some standard draw situations. I'll start with a really simple example--flush draw (basically the same on the straight with only a hair worse odds). Say you're effectively heads-up on the flop (everyone else has folded or will) with a guy against whom you "know" has you beat unless you make your flush draw. You also "know" your flush draw will win (say you have at least the Q). Also assuming you don't think you'll be able to take the pot away from the guy WITHOUT actually winning the hand, I think calling anything bet of half the pot or more for your flush draw is irrational and hence bad play. I'd be interested to know whether I'm just asserting a triviality here or whether anyone disagrees. And I'd be really interested in other exemplary applications of your principle. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Odds are not just math equations, Phish, 27. Oct 2003 15:57 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| True. I'd like to offer an example that recently came up that illustrates all the points mentioned. Playing 4 handed, I'm first to act and raised with A5 suited. A very good player in the small blind reraises. Big blind folds. flop comes 358. small blind bets, I call. Turn comes a 2. Now, if my opponent has a pair, I'm beat but have 9 outs (3 A's, two 5s, and 4 4's). 9 outs is clearly enough to draw for, with one complication. If I call the turn, I will have to call the river (trust me, calling the turn and folding on the river in this situation against a good short-handed player is the kind of play that will make you a sucker). 9 outs is not enough to pay two bets to draw for, given the size of the pot. But there is a good possibility that pair of 5's is the best hand. In which case, folding would be a big mistake. What about raising? If he has Ace-big, he's only drawing to 3 outs, and may pay off on the river if I bet, so I may actually not want to raise. The reason being that if he hits an Ace, he'll bet and I'll raise and win 2 bets on the river. If he misses and checks, I'll bet behind him and he may pay off with AK. So the extra bet I could make on the river is worth giving him a free card on fourth street by not raising since the pot is not large enough to justify what is the equivalent of calling for a three outer. But if he has KQ or KJ (or such) then he has 6 outs and a raise would be wise cause I'd rather he fold. But he may reraise if he has an overpair to the board. The above example illustrates the calculations of pot-odds, implied odds, negative implied odds, all mixed with uncertainty about what your opponent has and what could happen given your choice of actions to fold, call, or raise. In the end, I chose to call the turn and the river. He turned over AK and my pair of 5's won. (Not sure whether his river bet was a bluff or a value bet. It was most likely a what I call a 'free bet', which is if he checked and I bet, he would've called. But if he bets, there's a chance I'll pay off with AQ or AJ. Plus, if I had a hand that could beat AK, I'd almost certainly bet the river if he checks. The only danger to the 'free bet' was I may raise and then he'd have a tough decision to fold or call. It almost certainly wasn't a bluff since he'd know that I would never fold a hand that could beat AK. (Though in another recent hand, an opponent made precisely the same type of 'free bet' against me and I folded the same hand, which would've split the pot). | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Odds are not just math equations, Aisthesis, 27. Oct 2003 21:11 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Wow! a hand full of interesting subtleties. Just to get a handle on the various principles at play here, my first question would be regarding your "trust me" parenthesis, which makes intuitive sense to me, but I'd be interested in further elaboration on the "this situation" part. We're talking about: (1) shorthanded play, which (if I'm understanding this correctly) has essentially become (2) heads-up before the flop is even seen. The shorthanded part explains your pre-flop raise and influences the style of play later on. Do you think one can say for a heads-up game (or "semi-heads-up") with good, aggressive players: If you call or bet the turn after a good deal of pre-turn action, you must also call the river? (excluding cases where chip standings in a tournament might create a legitimate exception) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Odds are not just math equations, Phish, 28. Oct 2003 08:49 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| The biggest mistake you can make in poker is folding a winner on the river. We all do it occaisionally, but if you do it on any kind of frequent basis, you are a sucker. Expert players, especially short-handed specialists, will try to identify any such weakness and exploit it. If you think you are beat, the time to fold is on the flop or the turn. Once you've hit the river, the pot is now offering you 7.5 to one, in my example) (on the turn, you were only getting 6.5 to 2 return), and any tendency to fold now because you believe 'my opponent simply couldn't be bluffing again' will be identified and exploited. This really goes back to all the game theory writings of Sklansky & Malmuth. Theoretically, you shouldn't call 100% in this situation, but more like 90% (I don't know the exact number). But I remember an article that they wrote that essentially says that if you call 100% in these situations, you're not making a big mistake. But it's important to know your opponents. Against a timid predictible type, you could call on the turn for the draw and fold on the river. But people like that don't generally play or last very long in a 100/200 shorthanded game. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Odds are not just math equations, Aisthesis, 28. Oct 2003 09:32 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Yes, I see your point, but at a full table with several people in there's the obvious exception of not having gotten your winning draw. I have noted on various (attempted or successful) pot buys that hitting the bluff again on the turn often works, but if they've stayed through the turn, they're usually going to call the river unless they have something really scary looking them in the face. Having lost a few trying yet again on the river, I'm currently inclined to cut my losses there and just check rather than try the bluff again--unless my opponent has defined himself as "sucker" in the sense you mention. Do you think that's a reasonable strategy? The attempt to buy also usually costs so much by the river that a loss gets REALLY expensive. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Odds are not just math equations, Phish, 28. Oct 2003 13:02 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 28. Oct 2003 09:32 Aisthesis wrote: > Yes, I see your point, but at a full table with several people in there's the obvious exception > of not having gotten your winning draw. I have noted on various (attempted or successful) pot > buys that hitting the bluff again on the turn often works, but if they've stayed through the > turn, they're usually going to call the river unless they have something really scary looking > them in the face. Having lost a few trying yet again on the river, I'm currently inclined to > cut my losses there and just check rather than try the bluff again--unless my opponent has > defined himself as "sucker" in the sense you mention. > Do you think that's a reasonable strategy? The attempt to buy also usually costs so much by > the river that a loss gets REALLY expensive. Against more than 2 opponents, you're better off giving up on continuing the bluff. On a related but separate note: I've often heard the cliche, 'It's much easier to bluff a good player than a bad player.' Though I know what they mean, I still find that cliche a little annoying. Because, in theory, a truly good player would know that there's a good chance you're bluffing and will call or raise. It's only the weak tight players (who would be good only when compared to the loose clueless players) that are easiest to bluff. But don't be too proud of being able to make a big laydown. I think it's actually a major leak in many players' games that they mistakenly perceive to be a strength. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Odds are not just math equations, Phish, 28. Oct 2003 13:02 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 28. Oct 2003 09:32 Aisthesis wrote: > Yes, I see your point, but at a full table with several people in there's the obvious exception > of not having gotten your winning draw. I have noted on various (attempted or successful) pot > buys that hitting the bluff again on the turn often works, but if they've stayed through the > turn, they're usually going to call the river unless they have something really scary looking > them in the face. Having lost a few trying yet again on the river, I'm currently inclined to > cut my losses there and just check rather than try the bluff again--unless my opponent has > defined himself as "sucker" in the sense you mention. > Do you think that's a reasonable strategy? The attempt to buy also usually costs so much by > the river that a loss gets REALLY expensive. Against more than 2 opponents, you're better off giving up on continuing the bluff. On a related but separate note: I've often heard the cliche, 'It's much easier to bluff a good player than a bad player.' Though I know what they mean, I still find that cliche a little annoying. Because, in theory, a truly good player would know that there's a good chance you're bluffing and will call or raise. It's only the weak tight players (who would be good only when compared to the loose clueless players) that are easiest to bluff. But don't be too proud of being able to make a big laydown. I think it's actually a major leak in many players' games that they mistakenly perceive to be a strength. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Odds are not just math equations, Roy Cooke, 29. Oct 2003 09:00 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I am assuming the hand is being played No-Limit The price the pot is laying you is what the TOTAL is you will make if you make your hand...in your example you need to add if the player will call if you make your hand and how much do you expect to make from your opponent. IE: If the pot is $20 and the bet to you is $30...You should call if your opponent has $200 in front of him AND will call if you make your hand. You re getting $250-30 on the call! Life is Good :-) Roy Cooke on 27. Oct 2003 11:18 Aisthesis wrote: > very true, and probably in most cases a "feel" for the situation is the most > important thing to have (and imo one's "feel" is definitely improved by awareness of > the purely mathematical odds). > More interesting is how to apply your principle to some standard draw situations. > I'll start with a really simple example--flush draw (basically the same on the > straight with only a hair worse odds). Say you're effectively heads-up on the flop > (everyone else has folded or will) with a guy against whom you "know" has you beat > unless you make your flush draw. You also "know" your flush draw will win (say you > have at least the Q). Also assuming you don't think you'll be able to take the pot > away from the guy WITHOUT actually winning the hand, I think calling anything bet of > half the pot or more for your flush draw is irrational and hence bad play. > I'd be interested to know whether I'm just asserting a triviality here or whether > anyone disagrees. > And I'd be really interested in other exemplary applications of your principle. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Odds are not just math equations, Aisthesis, 29. Oct 2003 11:08 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Wow! VERY interesting point... So that means that with players who scare easily and will likely fold on sight of the flush, maybe even calling 1/2 the pot is not wise. But against calling machines, and/or where one's own image has gone in the direction of maniac or bluffer, it can be profitable to call bets well in excess of pot. For me that's a whole new way of looking at it... and makes complete sense... | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network | Find Vancouver Businesses |
|